5 ms·

> There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wea

> There are different types of value: scientific value, historic value, economic value, sentimental value, costly signaling value. Also wealth portability / wealth hiding / tax evasion value. Art has more than one type of value. I (and many others) value art not only for its economic, historical, and scientific value, but because I admire the ability of exceptional human beings. I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel. If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it. You don't have to value the same things I do, that's just my opinion. > many still play chess despite machines mastering that game This is a perfect example. Magnus Carlsen suspected that his opponent Hans Niemann cheated by using AI to assist him in a chess tournament. This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess. If the provenance of work didn't matter, people wouldn't care whether or not Niemann was using AI. Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent). > When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms. Despite all my talk about the value of communication — I'm not actually interested in pedantic quibbling over English semantics. If it really bothers you, feel free to mentally replace all instances of the word "machine" with "non-biological machine" in my writing. > Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics. I'm one of those millions of weird humans who will probably tune in to the Super Bowl today, despite the fact that machines with wheels could probably outclass the human competitors.

czl 3y ago
> I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel. Say you learn the feat was done using some clever use of mechanical 3D tracing or casting and chemicals that rapidly dissolve the rock and took no effort at all just knowledge of the trick. Now you would no longer be awestruck? Value for you is in the difficulty not the result? Btw: Highly recommend “Tim's Vermeer” documentary about old mechanical art technique being reverse engineered: https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ > If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it. Do you not question whether the enormous amount of time and effort various historical works cost was well spent? What if that time and effort was instead spent researching something useful? Does the principle of compound interest not apply to useful knowledge? What happens with compound interest over long time scales? What might our lives be today if instead of placing value on paintings / carvings / etc those before us placed more value on discovery and preservation of useful knowledge? > This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess. It was a scandal because many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies. What matters is the ranking. If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”. Are science research / publications such an activity? For some, yes. For others, no. How do you see it? > Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent). AI assisted writing when it looks like AI assisted writing is often “empty” -- it has the right look but lacks substance. If the author of the article was told her work looked like a high schooler did it that also may have upset her. If instead the author was told it was the work of a genius and not hers that may actually be accepted as a compliment -- if she maintains that high quality in the future what else can that be but an honest compliment on the quality of her work? >> When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms. You said above: “I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.” The passage above reveals how I see the world. Many see a sharp difference between “human” and “machine” yet the medicine we rely on assumes we are machines. I think many know this but do not realize the implications. To think about it can be uncomfortable. >> Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? > No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics. Your attitude I suspect is because you do not see you already are upgraded from what you would be otherwise. Your mind has been upgraded with language and is full of useful concepts and techniques that are not your own. To aid communication and memory you rely on speech and writing for information. You are surrounded by technology that upgrades you (and your life) but it is invisible to you and you do not think about it much.
- throwitaway1123 3y ago
  > Say you learn the feat was done using some clever use of mechanical 3D tracing or casting and chemicals that rapidly dissolve the rock and took no effort at all just knowledge of the trick. Now you would no longer be awestruck? Value for you is in the difficulty not the result? No, if I found out that the sculpture was 3d printed instead of sculpted by hand I wouldn't be as impressed. The value for me is derived both from the difficulty and the result. The result itself is impressive — if I saw a 17 foot tall statue towering over me I would be a bit impressed regardless of the methods used to produce it, but I also find it impressive imagining a man operating under the constraints of his tools, and the skill those constraints require. > https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ It's a cool thought experiment to imagine the Dutch Masters using a camera lucida to trace their paintings. If Vermeer traced his paintings I would indeed be less impressed with his work. I feel like we're going in circles restating the same points over and over again. > It was a scandal because many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies. What matters is the ranking. If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”. In the example we're discussing what is the meaningful "result" of a game of chess? It's literally a board game where you move small objects across a tiled surface for entertainment. To me you sound like someone saying "if people cared about the result of a foot race, they would let the runners drive cars". You've gone so far down the rabbit hole of defending AI that you're trying to undermine the idea of sports and games. > Do you not question whether the enormous amount of time and effort various historical works cost was well spent? What if that time and effort was instead spent researching something useful? How much time and effort have you spent trying to persuade me that art, sports, and games are frivolous? Maybe your time would be better spent researching something useful rather than writing these comments. > Are science research / publications such an activity? For some, yes. For others, no. How do you see it? I must have said this at least 5 or 6 times at this point, but I don't mind someone using AI to help them write a scientific paper. I just want creators who don't use AI to be credited for their work. > If instead the author was told it was the work of a genius and not hers that may actually be accepted as a compliment -- if she maintains that high quality in the future what else can that be but an honest compliment on the quality of her work? It could be considered a way of dismissing someone's effort and talent. If for example reviewers only questioned women about whether or not they were plagiarizing geniuses, I don't imagine they would find that very flattering. > Many see a sharp difference between “human” and “machine” yet the medicine we rely on assumes we are machines. I think many know this but do not realize the implications. To think about it can be uncomfortable. The idea that you can use the English word "machine" to describe a human being is not the deep philosophical insight that you perceive it to be. There's nothing uncomfortable about it, because you're just playing a language game. A doctor would have no problem treating your illness without referencing the word "machine". This would maybe be an uncomfortable truth to an undergrad taking their first philosophy course. > Your attitude I suspect is because you do not see you already are upgraded from what you would be otherwise. Your mind has been upgraded with language and is full of useful concepts and techniques that are not your own. I'm fully aware of the fact that human beings are already being upgraded. I specifically gave you the example of cochlear implants in my previous comment to indicate my awareness, which are a much more concrete example than your abstract "language, concepts, and techniques" example. I know these concepts feel revolutionary to you, but they're not to me. We've gone astray here but the topic of human upgrades came up because I asked you a simple question: if you only value the results of a process, rather than the human who derived the result, then what happens when humans are no longer required to produce any result? Do you propose that the only way we can stay relevant in such a society is to upload our minds to AWS where hardware can make us more intelligent than our wetware? I don't know about you, but I don't plan on becoming a brain in a vat in some datacenter, and I definitely don't plan on becoming a file on someone's Digital Ocean droplet. We might just have different preferences.

czl 3y ago

> I want to see Michelangelo's statue of David and be awestruck at how a human being could carve the 17 foot (5 meter) tall likeness of a man out of a solid block of marble with just a hammer and chisel. Say you learn the feat was done using some clever use of mechanical 3D tracing or casting and chemicals that rapidly dissolve the rock and took no effort at all just knowledge of the trick. Now you would no longer be awestruck? Value for you is in the difficulty not the result? Btw: Highly recommend “Tim's Vermeer” documentary about old mechanical art technique being reverse engineered: https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ > If you believe human produced art is valuable then you should care about verifying whether or not a human actually produced it. Do you not question whether the enormous amount of time and effort various historical works cost was well spent? What if that time and effort was instead spent researching something useful? Does the principle of compound interest not apply to useful knowledge? What happens with compound interest over long time scales? What might our lives be today if instead of placing value on paintings / carvings / etc those before us placed more value on discovery and preservation of useful knowledge? > This was a scandal precisely because people value the human element of chess. It was a scandal because many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies. What matters is the ranking. If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”. Are science research / publications such an activity? For some, yes. For others, no. How do you see it? > Just like the author of the article didn't enjoy having her work credited to a chatbot, Niemann probably didn't enjoy having his work credited to a chessbot (if he's indeed innocent). AI assisted writing when it looks like AI assisted writing is often “empty” -- it has the right look but lacks substance. If the author of the article was told her work looked like a high schooler did it that also may have upset her. If instead the author was told it was the work of a genius and not hers that may actually be accepted as a compliment -- if she maintains that high quality in the future what else can that be but an honest compliment on the quality of her work? >> When you are unwell do you seek medicine? What does medicine say you are? Are you not a biochemical machine? > I'm not sure what this passage accomplishes besides a redefinition of terms. You said above: “I'm legitimately curious about how you see the world.” The passage above reveals how I see the world. Many see a sharp difference between “human” and “machine” yet the medicine we rely on assumes we are machines. I think many know this but do not realize the implications. To think about it can be uncomfortable. >> Today our minds exist in one form. In the future, might our minds exist in other forms? If you had the power to upgrade various parts of yourself with better parts would you reject this? > No, I'm not a transhumanist. I believe in using technology to help people with differing abilities (e.g. I'm fine with cochlear implants), but I'm not planning on amputating my limbs to replace them with robotic prosthetics. Your attitude I suspect is because you do not see you already are upgraded from what you would be otherwise. Your mind has been upgraded with language and is full of useful concepts and techniques that are not your own. To aid communication and memory you rely on speech and writing for information. You are surrounded by technology that upgrades you (and your life) but it is invisible to you and you do not think about it much.

throwitaway1123 3y ago
> Say you learn the feat was done using some clever use of mechanical 3D tracing or casting and chemicals that rapidly dissolve the rock and took no effort at all just knowledge of the trick. Now you would no longer be awestruck? Value for you is in the difficulty not the result? No, if I found out that the sculpture was 3d printed instead of sculpted by hand I wouldn't be as impressed. The value for me is derived both from the difficulty and the result. The result itself is impressive — if I saw a 17 foot tall statue towering over me I would be a bit impressed regardless of the methods used to produce it, but I also find it impressive imagining a man operating under the constraints of his tools, and the skill those constraints require. > https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ https://youtu.be/WPL7D0Ha1kQ It's a cool thought experiment to imagine the Dutch Masters using a camera lucida to trace their paintings. If Vermeer traced his paintings I would indeed be less impressed with his work. I feel like we're going in circles restating the same points over and over again. > It was a scandal because many use costly signals (ability to play sports / games or create or acquire stuff like “art”) to rank each other in hierarchies. What matters is the ranking. If the result mattered, anything that improves the result would be welcome, not rejected as “cheating”. In the example we're discussing what is the meaningful "result" of a game of chess? It's literally a board game where you move small objects across a tiled surface for entertainment. To me you sound like someone saying "if people cared about the result of a foot race, they would let the runners drive cars". You've gone so far down the rabbit hole of defending AI that you're trying to undermine the idea of sports and games. > Do you not question whether the enormous amount of time and effort various historical works cost was well spent? What if that time and effort was instead spent researching something useful? How much time and effort have you spent trying to persuade me that art, sports, and games are frivolous? Maybe your time would be better spent researching something useful rather than writing these comments. > Are science research / publications such an activity? For some, yes. For others, no. How do you see it? I must have said this at least 5 or 6 times at this point, but I don't mind someone using AI to help them write a scientific paper. I just want creators who don't use AI to be credited for their work. > If instead the author was told it was the work of a genius and not hers that may actually be accepted as a compliment -- if she maintains that high quality in the future what else can that be but an honest compliment on the quality of her work? It could be considered a way of dismissing someone's effort and talent. If for example reviewers only questioned women about whether or not they were plagiarizing geniuses, I don't imagine they would find that very flattering. > Many see a sharp difference between “human” and “machine” yet the medicine we rely on assumes we are machines. I think many know this but do not realize the implications. To think about it can be uncomfortable. The idea that you can use the English word "machine" to describe a human being is not the deep philosophical insight that you perceive it to be. There's nothing uncomfortable about it, because you're just playing a language game. A doctor would have no problem treating your illness without referencing the word "machine". This would maybe be an uncomfortable truth to an undergrad taking their first philosophy course. > Your attitude I suspect is because you do not see you already are upgraded from what you would be otherwise. Your mind has been upgraded with language and is full of useful concepts and techniques that are not your own. I'm fully aware of the fact that human beings are already being upgraded. I specifically gave you the example of cochlear implants in my previous comment to indicate my awareness, which are a much more concrete example than your abstract "language, concepts, and techniques" example. I know these concepts feel revolutionary to you, but they're not to me. We've gone astray here but the topic of human upgrades came up because I asked you a simple question: if you only value the results of a process, rather than the human who derived the result, then what happens when humans are no longer required to produce any result? Do you propose that the only way we can stay relevant in such a society is to upload our minds to AWS where hardware can make us more intelligent than our wetware? I don't know about you, but I don't plan on becoming a brain in a vat in some datacenter, and I definitely don't plan on becoming a file on someone's Digital Ocean droplet. We might just have different preferences.